Forums: Skydiving: Incidents:
Two canopy out - Multiple locations

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

GobbleGobble  (D 32887)

Jan 30, 2013, 4:15 PM
Post #26 of 52 (1501 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JerryBaumchen] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Hi Gobble,

Nicely put if I may say so.

I tend agree but remember, I do not speak for the FAA. It would probably be very successfully argued that relocating the reserve ripcord handle would put the 'alteration' outside of the design parameters, i.e., would no longer comply with the TSO.

Thanks, always good to get a thought or two,

JerryBaumchen

I'm pretty surprised Tony went there in the first place. Also surprised a bit that H/C mfgs haven't put out a note saying don't do this. What I don't understand and would like someone to get me smart on is what the limitations are for master riggers with regards to all this stuff. I've read the verbage on repairs and such, but wondering how far they can mod a system before they could be running foul.


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Jan 30, 2013, 5:32 PM
Post #27 of 52 (1460 views)
Shortcut
Re: [GobbleGobble] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

>I'm pretty surprised Tony went there in the first place.

Note that these suits are intended for BASE, not skydiving; thus it's not an intended use of the suit (although Tony has given suggestions on how to use them for skydiving.)

> Also surprised a bit that H/C mfgs haven't put out a note saying don't do this.

I don't think there's been enough time for them to respond to this yet.


GobbleGobble  (D 32887)

Jan 30, 2013, 6:07 PM
Post #28 of 52 (1439 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
>I'm pretty surprised Tony went there in the first place.

Note that these suits are intended for BASE, not skydiving; thus it's not an intended use of the suit (although Tony has given suggestions on how to use them for skydiving.)

> Also surprised a bit that H/C mfgs haven't put out a note saying don't do this.

I don't think there's been enough time for them to respond to this yet.

The original mod used handles that connected via french link around the cutaway cable and reserve cable (respectively).

The original mod was provided by Tonysuits.

The issue was noted over 10 months ago.

A sticky was started by Tony in the WS subforum on March 20, 2012.

The mod that relocates the handles to the suit and off the MLW, I hope was not suggested by Tonysuits. It sounds like it was.

Putting up a disclaimer on your site saying that a suit is BASE only and then engaging in the above is pretty stupid. By providing the handles in the first place he's blown that disclaimer out of the water IMO.

Just should have left it alone.

The Squirrel guys have bypassed this completely by the way they designed the zip system. MLW outside the suit for sky. MLW can be moved inside for BASE.

You are seriously going to tell me that it takes someone 10 months or more to look at this and say "this is a less than brilliant idea"?

I'm not trying to shitbag on Tony. I just don't get the thought process. He and his team make great stuff, I just think this was poorly thought out (and continues to be).


Andy9o8  (D License)

Jan 30, 2013, 7:00 PM
Post #29 of 52 (1413 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Note that these suits are intended for BASE, not skydiving; thus it's not an intended use of the suit (although Tony has given suggestions on how to use them for skydiving.)
.

Well, depending on what was said, and in what context, that just might give someone with an agenda the ammo to argue that it inches it closer to the line. At the very least (again, depending on what/how was said) it potentially creates an inconvenient ambiguity. Just saying.


(This post was edited by Andy9o8 on Jan 30, 2013, 7:01 PM)


johnmatrix  (D 9999)

Jan 31, 2013, 12:19 AM
Post #30 of 52 (1281 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JerryBaumchen] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:

Quote:
I don't even know how they're allowed to be jumped if they violate the TSO

Not trying to argue, trying to find out what leads you to conclude this.

Elaborate, please.

Honestly I'd just assumed all gear had to be TSO'd to be jumped legally from aircraft. That is not correct?
Perhaps I did post a bit quickly. Smile


Premier Remster  (C License)

Jan 31, 2013, 1:25 AM
Post #31 of 52 (1264 views)
Shortcut
Re: [johnmatrix] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:

Quote:
I don't even know how they're allowed to be jumped if they violate the TSO

Not trying to argue, trying to find out what leads you to conclude this.

Elaborate, please.

Honestly I'd just assumed all gear had to be TSO'd to be jumped legally from aircraft. That is not correct?
Perhaps I did post a bit quickly. Smile

No, it's not correct.

The Harness/Container and the Reserve generally need to be TSO'd to be jumped from an aircraft, in the US (along with some other rules, like be a 2 canopy system, etc...). I say generally because exceptions can be granted.

Other countries have different requirements and may recognize different standards.


johnmatrix  (D 9999)

Jan 31, 2013, 2:15 AM
Post #32 of 52 (1248 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Remster] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks for the clarification.
I have seen a couple of Apaches modified for skydiving that did seem to look OK.
I'd consider jumping a setup like the one I saw but I'd have to have a very good reason to do so - good enough to accept the extra risk involved with being a test jumper.


dustin19d  (D License)

Feb 2, 2013, 6:48 PM
Post #33 of 52 (895 views)
Shortcut
Re: [PhreeZone] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

I guess this is a moot point as the purpose of this thread is to discuss the usefulness of this particular wing suit designed for BASE but modified for free fall.
I didn't see anyone else notice that he pulls hard right rear riser on the left parachute and hard left rear riser on the right parachute effectively turning them into the ground. The twist in the main on the right doesnt really effect anything, as long as the risers are equal (same length) the parachute could care less that the twist is there. Any inputs to that parachute should obviously be above the twist VIA rear riser. He did the right thing keeping both canopies and all brakes stowed however the low self induced down plane was avoidable Unsure


monkycndo  (D License)

Feb 3, 2013, 4:19 AM
Post #34 of 52 (817 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dustin19d] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

The pilot starts pulling right rear riser on the reserve, but changed to the left rear. In a side by side, pulling the "inside" risers would cause the canopies to turn towards eachother, not go downplane. It was pulling on the outside riser of the reserve that caused the reserve to turn away from the main and induce the downplane.

If stable, letting both canopies fly is the best and safest way to handle a two out. But if you must turn to avoid an obstruction, steer the canopy that is on the outside of the turn and have it push the inside canopy the direction you want both to go. In the situation in this video, the pilot should have used only left rear riser of the main to push the reserve to the left. If he had also responded a bit sooner, a small correction would have been more than enough to make sure he would have had open ground to land and reduced the amount of input needed to get the same amount of direction change then waiting to be where he was and feeling the need to make a much more drastic turn.


fasted3  (D 30104)

Feb 3, 2013, 7:24 AM
Post #35 of 52 (1004 views)
Shortcut
Re: [monkycndo] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The pilot starts pulling right rear riser on the reserve, but changed to the left rear. In a side by side, pulling the "inside" risers would cause the canopies to turn towards eachother, not go downplane. It was pulling on the outside riser of the reserve that caused the reserve to turn away from the main and induce the downplane.

If stable, letting both canopies fly is the best and safest way to handle a two out. But if you must turn to avoid an obstruction, steer the canopy that is on the outside of the turn and have it push the inside canopy the direction you want both to go. In the situation in this video, the pilot should have used only left rear riser of the main to push the reserve to the left. If he had also responded a bit sooner, a small correction would have been more than enough to make sure he would have had open ground to land and reduced the amount of input needed to get the same amount of direction change then waiting to be where he was and feeling the need to make a much more drastic turn.
Yeah, but...
The line twist in the main would make it harder to control it. Not saying your suggestion wouldn't work, but I think that twist would make it more difficult to predict what would happen, leading to...
If he did start messing with it sooner and things went bad, the outcome could have been worse. By waiting, he had a survivable outcome even though it did go bad.
I still like your comment though. If his last minute response had been to use the main, it probably would have been better yet.
Good stuff.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Feb 3, 2013, 10:43 AM
Post #36 of 52 (948 views)
Shortcut
Re: [monkycndo] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In a side by side, pulling the "inside" risers

Where in the world did you guys get the idea to play with risers in a two-out?
Crazy


(This post was edited by popsjumper on Feb 3, 2013, 10:43 AM)


Premier DSE  (D 29060)

Feb 3, 2013, 12:09 PM
Post #37 of 52 (910 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In a side by side, pulling the "inside" risers

Where in the world did you guys get the idea to play with risers in a two-out?
Crazy

hypothetical;

You're heading for a building, scary obstacle (similar to the ditch in the video) fence, power lines, construction debris pile, or other unlandable area and have a two-out. It's too late to safely release the main.
What would you do?


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Feb 3, 2013, 12:29 PM
Post #38 of 52 (901 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In reply to:
In a side by side, pulling the "inside" risers

Where in the world did you guys get the idea to play with risers in a two-out?
Crazy

hypothetical;

You're heading for a building, scary obstacle (similar to the ditch in the video) fence, power lines, construction debris pile, or other unlandable area and have a two-out. It's too late to safely release the main.
What would you do?

Call the wife.
"Honey, come on down to see the crash! It's going to be a beauty!"

Seriously, though...

DSE
Since you didn't specify altitude, I'll throw it back at you.
Options
- Do nothing, take the thump
- Emergency avoidance maneuver with risers
- Emergency avoidance maneuver with toggles

If you are that close, either avoidance maneuver will be necessarily radical which, in all likelihood will adversely affect your canopy flight...probably to the extent of exponentially increasing the speed at impact.
(folded up canopies, entangled, downplane?)

If you're going to do an avoidance maneuver , use the toggles that are already in your hands.

Higher altitude
Fly the proper canopy with toggles using gentle, minimal inputs to avoid the obstacles.


Edited to add: Yes, I know the SIM provides options for both toggles OR risers. Toggle control has been tested. Has riser control been tested? I mean other than, "I did it and I'm still alive so it must be good-to-go."


(This post was edited by popsjumper on Feb 3, 2013, 12:35 PM)


The111  (D 29246)

Feb 3, 2013, 1:12 PM
Post #39 of 52 (873 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Edited to add: Yes, I know the SIM provides options for both toggles OR risers. Toggle control has been tested. Has riser control been tested? I mean other than, "I did it and I'm still alive so it must be good-to-go."

I'm not sure there have been any tests where one of the canopies had line twists. In a situation like that I may think twice about releasing brakes on either canopy (assuming I decided to keep them both and land it with the twists). For instance, one good hypothetical is what if the twisted canopy is the dominant one? Releasing those brakes accomplishes nothing since steering lines are unreliable (at best) when twisted up, and releasing the brakes on the non-dominant canopy goes against conventional wisdom based on... testing.

If I did decide to land a biplane where one canopy had twists, I'd probably do a control check with risers only up high. If I could safely control if like that, I would probably leave the brakes stowed. If it didn't seem safe like that, I'd release toggles on untwisted canopy and do another control check. If didn't seem safe like that, I'd probably try to separate the canopies as far as possible and chop main.

But yes, in general, "riser control" has been tested. It's been proven that risers are a means of controlling a canopy.




popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Feb 3, 2013, 5:26 PM
Post #41 of 52 (803 views)
Shortcut
Re: [The111] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
But yes, in general, "riser control" has been tested. It's been proven that risers are a means of controlling a canopy.
Show us who, what, when and where.

One having line twists pretty much makes it a no-brainer on which to fly.

So, you've chosen to do something other than proven best practices. OK your choice. I will ask you that until the riser trick is tested and proven, that you teach the young jumpers to use toggles, please.


(This post was edited by popsjumper on Feb 3, 2013, 5:36 PM)


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Feb 3, 2013, 5:28 PM
Post #42 of 52 (802 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BudHadfield] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
If you're going to do an avoidance maneuver , use the toggles that are already in your hands.

Use the toggles or risers that are most likely to help you, without making things worse.

Use the technique that has been tested and proven best practices. How are you going to know that either one is the most likely to help you? You don't.

Or,

Are you saying to let go of the toggles and then perform the maneuver with the risers?


Maybe YOU have test info?


(This post was edited by popsjumper on Feb 3, 2013, 5:30 PM)


format  (B 15348)

Feb 3, 2013, 8:41 PM
Post #43 of 52 (744 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DSE] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It's too late to safely release the main.

When is too late?


pchapman  (D 1014)

Feb 4, 2013, 6:27 AM
Post #44 of 52 (625 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
In a side by side, pulling the "inside" risers

Where in the world did you guys get the idea to play with risers in a two-out?
Crazy

Although you weren't responding to me specifically, these are my sources, that suggest that leaving toggles stowed and using risers is best:

-- Jim Cowan of CPS at PIA 2009
-- John Leblanc of CPS in a 2004 lecture
-- the CSPA manual, FWIW (PIM 2 rewritten 2010)

These are in contrast to the Dual Square Report presented at the PIA in 1997, which mentions flying the front canopy in a biplane, or the 'dominant' canopy in a side by side, with gentle toggle input.

(However, it never explicitly mentions releasing toggles, what to do if certain toggles are released or not, or toggle positions for matching a canopy that has toggles set. Thus my opinion is that the toggles issue might not have been thought out as much at that time as in later publications.)

The USPA SIM basically follows the Dual Square Report, but is explicit about releasing toggles in order to steer.

I personally don't believe that using toggles is "proven best practice" or that the Dual Square Report is the final word in scientific proof in the field. I tend towards preferring to keep the canopies slower if possible (if they aren't the less common type that is on the edge of stalling when brakes are set), but would agree that more evidence would be useful.


Premier faulknerwn  (D 17441)
Moderator
Feb 4, 2013, 7:11 AM
Post #45 of 52 (600 views)
Shortcut
Re: [pchapman] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

For me if I already had the main toggles unstowed I would continue steering wiih them.

If I ended up with 2 parachutes out in a stable configuration with both sets of brakes were still stowed - I wouldn't screw with what was working and would steer using really gentle riser inputs.


format  (B 15348)

Feb 4, 2013, 8:40 AM
Post #46 of 52 (558 views)
Shortcut
Re: [faulknerwn] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
For me if I already had the main toggles unstowed I would continue steering wiih them.

... and if the toggles were stowed?


Premier faulknerwn  (D 17441)
Moderator
Feb 4, 2013, 8:50 AM
Post #47 of 52 (544 views)
Shortcut
Re: [format] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

The second paragraph of my above post / I would not change a stable configuration and would steer with risers


normiss  (D 28356)

Feb 4, 2013, 8:51 AM
Post #48 of 52 (542 views)
Shortcut
Re: [format] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

Might want to read his post again.
Wink




Krip  (Student)

Feb 4, 2013, 10:47 AM
Post #50 of 52 (469 views)
Shortcut
Re: [format] Two canopy out - Multiple locations [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
It's too late to safely release the main.

When is too late?

YMMV.

I don't think this is a exact science. Their are lots of variables Shocked.

Know your options and deal with it.Unimpressed


First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : Incidents

 


Search for (options)